JONATHAN BURGESS
Achilles’ Heel:
The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
T
  of Achilles’ heel is familiar to everyone: Thetis makes Achilles
invulnerable by dipping him in the Styx, but he is fatally wounded where she
had held him. This story is not attested before the time of the Roman Empire,
but some tantalizing details in early Greek literature and art are suggestive of
it, such as the placing of the newborn Achilles in boiling water or fire, or the
wounding of Achilles near the heel. In addition, it is sometimes thought that the
wounding of Diomedes in the foot by Paris at Iliad 11.369ff. reflects the death
of Achilles.1 For these reasons many scholars have concluded that the story of
Achilles’ heel dates back to the Archaic Age or is even pre-Homeric.2
This paper first of all considers the validity of this conclusion by examining the possible evidence in ancient art and literature for Achilles’ imperfect
I wish to thank especially Emmet Robbins for advice and commentary. I owe thanks as well to
Jane Aspinall, John Grant, Rev. M. O. Lee, Wallace McLeod, Martin Mueller, Sam Solecki, and
the readers of Classical Antiquity for commenting on drafts of this paper. Earlier versions were
presented at the University of Toronto Department of Classics Graduate Students’ Colloquium 1993
and the CAAS Spring Meeting 1994; both audiences provided helpful remarks. I also thank Glenn
Most for initial encouragement and Eric Csapo for advice on obtaining illustrations.
1. Neo-analysts have most persistently explored this possibility (Pestalozzi 17; Schoeck 76–
77; P. Kakridis 293 n. 1; Heubeck 1974:46; Kullmann 1984:313–15, 1991:441 n. 65). Mueller 53;
M. Edwards 1987:63–64, 1991:18; McLeod 36; Janko 409; Stanley 421 n. 158 have found it an
attractive idea. For a skeptical view, see Fenik 1968:234–35; Hainsworth ad loc. (though Fenik
1986:15–17 accepts the comparison).
2. Cf. Welcker 175–76; Drerup 231 n. 3; R. Carpenter 74; Scherer 99; Fenik 1964:38;
Thordarson 110; Kemp-Lindemann 3, 222; Kossatz-Deissmann passim, esp. 185; Kunisch 18;
Schein 121 n. 3 (the vases cited here seem to be confused); King 271 n. 68; Janko 409; Woodford
25–26, 94; Baldick 81. Of these, Drerup, Schein, Janko (followed by Baldick), and Woodford seem
to think that the motif may be pre-Homeric; Thordarson 124 allows that this is possible. Most of
the scholars listed in the previous note seem implicitly to consider the story pre-Homeric.
© 1995        
218
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
invulnerability, i.e., invulnerability except for a single vulnerable location.3
Though I conclude that Achilles was not invulnerable in early Greek myth, I
attempt to demonstrate that there is a continuity from early to later stories about
Achilles. What caused the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability to unfold
from earlier traditions, I propose, is the late version of the death of Achilles in
which he is ambushed in the temple of Thymbraean Apollo.
There are four traditions, or rather two pairs of traditions, that need to be
distinguished in exploring these issues: an early tradition of Achilles as an infant
being placed in fire or boiling water, as opposed to a later tradition of Achilles
being dipped in the Styx, and an early tradition in which Achilles was killed on
the battlefield, as opposed to a later tradition in which Achilles was killed in the
temple of Apollo. It should be admitted from the start that this schematization
is to some extent simplistic. The four “traditions” mentioned are really groupings
of similar variants, each with their own idiosyncrasies. The labels “early” and
“later” should also be used cautiously, for though it is natural to consider the
earliest evidence as indicative of the earliest traditions, an early tradition may
not be attested until quite late. And we should not think that an apparently later
tradition simply replaces an earlier tradition. It often exists as an alternative
alongside the earlier tradition. But according to my analysis, early traditions of
Achilles’ infancy and death do not seem to involve the invulnerability of Achilles.
It will be worthwhile, nonetheless, to explore what exactly these early traditions
were and how the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability evolved out of
them. Consideration of these issues should assist our comprehension of ancient
references to the death of Achilles and allow us to better judge apparent reflections
of it, like the wounding Diomedes in Iliad 11.
Because invulnerability is common in world folklore,4 we might suspect that
it existed in pre-historic traditions. The sub-category of imperfect invulnerability
is present in various branches of the Indo-European family tree, which may mean
that it is a characteristic of Indo-European myth.5 Invulnerability is associated with
3. The topic of Achilles’ heel has been most thoroughly explored by Berthold 35–43; Thordarson; Young; and Gantz 625–28. Though I ultimately disagree with their very different views,
these studies have greatly assisted my comprehension of the relevant issues. The evidence of art
is essential, and I will be routinely referring to the comprehensive surveys of depictions of Achilles
by Kemp-Lindemann and Kossatz-Deissmann (author of LIMC “Achilleus”).
4. See Thompson D 1344ff., 1840ff.
5. See Thompson Z 311ff. Siegfried, who was vulnerable only between his shoulder blades,
is a well-known example from German myth, compared to Achilles by, e.g., Waser 1577; Thordarson
113; Janko 409 (followed by Baldick 81). Diarmid of Celtic myth is sometimes cited because he was
said to have been slain through a wound to his sole (cf. Bergin, Lloyd, and Schoepperle 157–79;
MacCulloch 175ff.; Green 81). It is not clear to me that he did have a uniquely vulnerable spot,
but Thompson lists other Irish examples (see also Cross Z 311ff.). Soslan is imperfectly invulnerable
in legends of the Ossetians, an Iranian people who are descended from Scythians; his story is
summarized at Thordarson 117–19 (see Baldick 9 and Littleton/Malcor passim on Ossetian myth).
Drerup 231 n. 3; Thordarson 112–14 consider imperfect invulnerability Indo-European (though
Thordarson supposes it did not evolve naturally from a common Proto-Indo-European origin, but
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
219
such figures of Greek mythology as Ajax, Caeneus, Cycnus, and Talos the bronze
man, and sometimes the evidence for their invulnerability reaches back to the Archaic Age.6 It is possible that an invulnerable Achilles inspired the invulnerability
of these figures or vice versa. Ajax and Talos are especially comparable, since Ajax
also had a uniquely vulnerable spot and Talos lost all his blood through an opening
or wound in his ankle.7 But it does not necessarily follow from the early existence
of invulnerability in Greek myth that Achilles was invulnerable at an early date.
There is no proof of Achilles’ invulnerability in early Greek myth, and in fact
some early evidence seems to be incompatible with it. We will need to consider
both Achilles’ infancy and his death at Troy in order to pursue the question.
THETIS WITH THE INFANT ACHILLES
Let us first examine stories about the actions of Thetis when Achilles was
an infant. Earlier and less well known than her dipping of Achilles in the Styx is a
rather diffused from the Scythians; cf. the thesis of Littleton/Malcor that Scythian myth directly
influenced Celtic myth in the second century ..). The concept is also found in non-Indo-European
cultures, as Thompson’s survey indicates.
6. Berthold argued (see especially 60–62) that invulnerability was a post-epic development in
Greek myth. It certainly was present in Greek myth from the fifth century onwards. For evidence that
Ajax was earlier invulnerable cf. Lycoph. 455 with scholia; Pind., Isthm. 6.36ff.; schol. Isthm. 6.53
= Hes., fr. 250 M–W. Gantz 633 thinks the sword of Ajax is split on an early Greek vase depicting his
suicide (Paris, Louvre E 635; LIMC “Aias I” no. 120, ca. 600); Severyns 328; Davies 1989a:60–61;
Shefton 1973:207 n. 4 speculate that Ajax was invulnerable in the epic cycle. For Caeneus see Hesiod,
fr. 87 M-W and the early Greek relief on which Caeneus is beaten into the ground because he cannot
be killed otherwise (Olympia, Museum BE 11a; LIMC “Kaineus” no. 61, ca. 650; cf. Ahlberg-Cornell
128–29). Talos the bronze man can be traced back to Simonides (fr. 568 PMG = schol. Pl., Resp. 337a)
and Gantz 594 suggests that Cycnus may have been invulnerable in the epic cycle. For other sources
see (on Ajax) Gantz 631–34; (on Caeneus) Frazer ad Apollod., Epit. 1.22; Gantz 280–81; (on Talos)
Frazer ad Apollod., Bibl. 1.9.26; Gantz 364–65; (on Cycnus) Frazer ad Apollod., Epit. 3.31; Gantz
594. It is not clear if the Nemean lion hide of Heracles was always considered invulnerable; cf. Frazer
ad Apollod., Bibl. 2.5.1; Gantz 383–84; Ahlberg-Cornell 38–39, 97–99 (note that it is featured in
accounts of Ajax’s acquiring invulnerability). Less well known is Heracles’ invulnerable opponent
Asterus in the lost epic poem Meropis (see Bernabé pp. 131ff.). Apollod., Bibl. 1.8.2 is the only
source that links invulnerability with the firebrand version of Meleager’s death (for which see Frazer
ad loc.; Gantz 328–31; on Meleager’s invulnerability, see Berthold 29ff.). I agree with those who
think the firebrand version is pre-Homeric (e.g., J. Kakridis 14; Macleod 142; Burkert 1985:63;
Hainsworth [cautiously] 131–32; Murnaghan 247), but invulnerability may not always have been
part of it.
7. Thordarson 112 and Davies 1989a:60 suggest that the concept of invulnerability passed
from Achilles to Ajax. Fenik 1964:38 labels the invulnerability of Ajax and Achilles a “doublet.”
Young prefers to view Achilles’ invulnerability as derivative from other mythical figures. Thordarson
120ff. proposes that imperfect invulnerability was transferred from a Scythian prototype of Soslan to
Achilles by the end of the sixth century ..., supposing that the worship of Achilles in the Black
Sea region provided an opportunity for this. This theory should be approached warily because it uses
legends of the Ossetians gathered over the course of the last century as evidence for traditions two
and a half thousand years in the past, but Scythian influence on Greek conceptions of Achilles in cult
and myth has been thought possible (cf. Kemp-Lindemann 244; Hommel 16 n. 35; Pinney; Hedreen,
esp. 322).
220
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
tradition in which Thetis placed Achilles in fire or boiling water.8 Such a story was
apparently in the Aigimios, a lost epic poem.9 We are told that Thetis had many
children whose mortality she tested by putting them into a pot of boiling water.10
After many infants had been killed Thetis began to carry out this experiment on
Achilles, but Peleus angrily interrupted and saved Achilles from the same fate.
The placement of infants in boiling water is comparable to the dipping of Achilles
in the Styx, but it is important to notice the motive of Thetis and consequence
of her actions. When Thetis dips Achilles in the Styx, she intends to change his
nature and succeeds in making him invulnerable (at least almost). In the Aigimios
Thetis tests but does not try to change the nature of her children. Because she
is uncomprehending or heartless, the consequence is death for all the children she
tests. Though Achilles is saved from death, his nature is not changed.
From various scholia we learn of similar accounts in which Thetis kills many
of her children, usually with fire. Sometimes Thetis is testing her children’s
mortality; in other versions she unintentionally kills her children while attempting
to make them immortal by burning off their mortal nature. In one version Thetis
kills her children because they are mortal and therefore unworthy of her. Achilles
is always saved at the last minute when Peleus interrupts.11 The motive and
consequence in all these versions also differ from those found in the tradition in
which Achilles is dipped in the Styx. In some Thetis has no intention of changing
the nature of her children. In others Thetis wants to change the nature of her
children, but her intention is to make them immortal, not invulnerable. And she
does not have the ability to achieve this intention anyway, as the death of several
of her children indicates. Achilles is saved from her disastrous attempts to do
what she does not have the power to effect.
In a related variant, narrated at Apollonius of Rhodes 4.869ff. and Apollodorus, Bibl. 3.13.6, Thetis tries to make Achilles immortal with fire and ambrosia. She apparently has the ability to do this (there are no other children who
8. Murnaghan 251–52 interestingly discusses some of the stories examined below in her
demonstration that a mother was commonly considered responsible for her son’s death in Greek myth.
It has been thought that purifying rituals for newborns lie behind myths about magically transforming
the nature of an infant through fire; cf. Frazer, vol. 2, 311ff.; Berthold 39ff.; Richardson 231–32. An
anonymous reader for Classical Antiquity suggests as an influence the Phoenician ritual of burning
infants in sacrifice to a divinity. Burial grounds for this practice called tophets have been found at
Carthage and other Phoenician cities and there are apparent references to it in the Old Testament;
see Brown now for the literary and archaeological evidence (I thank Angela Kalinowski for
this reference).
9. Schol. Ap. Rhod. 4.816 = Hes., fr. 300 M-W.
10. Young 21 n. 32 points out that the water is not explicitly said to be boiling, but I think
that can be assumed.
11. Cf. schol. Il. 16.37; schol. Pind., Pyth. 3.178; schol. Aristoph., Clouds 1068; Tzetz. ad
Lycoph. 178–79 (with Lycophron 178–79). Ptolemy Hephaestion’s idiosyncratic tale of the death of
Achilles (Photius, Bibl. 190; see Young 13) is based on the type of story found in these sources.
The testimonium for the account in the Aigimios adds that fire is employed in some (unspecified)
versions.
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
221
are killed in this variant) but is interrupted by Peleus. A similar procedure and interruption occur in myth about Demeter and her nursling Demophon, most notably
at Homeric Hymn to Demeter 231ff.12 Some assume that Apollonius has simply
adapted the story from the Homeric hymn, but the existence of so many similar
stories about Thetis with the newborn Achilles suggests that this explanation is
too simplistic. A common source could have influenced both, or similar traditions
about Achilles and Demophon could have influenced each other.13 In any case, it is
important that we notice the motive and consequence of the actions of Thetis in the
version found in Apollonius and Apollodorus. Her intention is to make Achilles
immortal, not invulnerable. She does have the ability to achieve this intention, but
because she is interrupted she does not succeed. Apparently the magical effect
of the procedure fails completely if it is interrupted. This is clearly the result in the
Homeric hymn, and in some stories about Demeter, e.g., Apollodorus, Bibl. 1.5.1,
Demophon actually dies.14 Achilles must survive, of course, but it should be
stressed that in all accounts of placing him in fire or boiling water the procedure is
interrupted, which precludes the possibility of changing his nature.15 These stories
feature the angry departure of Thetis from the home of Peleus, and interruption of
the procedure is necessary to motivate her departure.16
These accounts, which I have loosely referred to as the tradition of placing
Achilles in fire or boiling water, are all incompatible with the tradition of dipping
Achilles in the Styx, in which the intention is to make Achilles invulnerable
12. Plutarch, De Is. et Os. 16 reports essentially the same tale about Isis and a nursling.
Richardson 238 argues that the Greeks transferred the tale from Demeter to Isis because they
identified the two with one another.
13. See Richardson 69–70, 237–38; Young 12. I think this type of story is most appropriate for a
semi-divine infant, since the fire apparently serves to separate mortal nature from divine nature (see
further at n. 15 below). The fact that Demeter swears by the Styx at Homeric Hymn to Demeter 259
has attracted some attention. Because of this detail Young 25 n. 49 wonders if a confused Tertullian
was thinking of Homer when he referred to “the poet” who narrated Achilles’ dipping in the Styx
(a passage discussed below). Young ultimately rejects this possibility as “almost too far-fetched to
be possible.” Nagy 1979:188–89 finds greater significance in the hymn’s reference to the “immortal”
Styx, suggesting this is an indication of an early date for the story of Achilles’ dipping in the Styx
(but see n. 27 below).
14. See Richardson 81, 242, 247; Murnaghan 258; Foley 51.
15. Woodford 25; Calasso 105 imply that Achilles did become incompletely immortal in this
tradition. The available evidence does not warrant that conclusion, but it is not impossible that
Achilles was made mostly invulnerable (or immortal) in an unknown variant, as Thordarson 111–12
proposes. Soslan of Ossetian myth is made imperfectly invulnerable through heat and immersion,
and a Roman cista (discussed below) may depict a similar phenomenon with Ares. Other examples in
myth of fire or boiling water used to immortalize or rejuvenate (e.g., Heracles on a burning pyre,
Aeson in Medea’s cauldron) can be found at Marx 173 n. 5; Frazer, vol. 2, 359ff.; Farnell 36–44;
Onians 289–90; Richardson 238ff.; Vermeule 214 n. 22. I find Heracles’ apotheosis most relevant, for
burning allows the immortal part of his semi-divine nature, exusta mortalitate (Pliny, NH 35.139), to
emerge. I intend to argue elsewhere that a similar phenomenon occurred when the corpse of Achilles
was burnt on a pyre. This would finally accomplish what Thetis failed to achieve when she placed the
infant Achilles in fire (and also explain the apparent contradiction of both burial and translation of
Achilles in the summary of the Aethiopis by Proclus).
16. On this tradition and its apparent variance with some passages in the Iliad, see Robbins 7–8.
222
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
and the procedure is successfully completed (at least almost). In literature the
Styx-dipping tradition is not attested until Statius in the late first century ..17
But his references to it are so incomplete and allusive that we need remarks by
later mythographers and scholiasts to understand what he means.18 Since Statius
seems to assume that his audience knows the story, he clearly did not invent it.
How far back in time before Statius did this tradition reach? Artifacts do not
greatly help us with this question, for certain depictions of the dipping of Achilles
in the Styx do not occur until after the time of Statius (e.g., Fig. 1).19 Nevertheless,
some have proposed that the story originated in the Hellenistic period, a guess
that seems reasonable enough to me.20
Young has argued instead (14ff.) that the story of Achilles’ dipping in the
Styx originated soon before the time of Statius under the influence of baptism, an
argument that has been influential.21 Tertullian, De anima 50.3 vaguely refers to
a poet who spoke of the Styx “washing away death” and adds that nonetheless
Thetis mourned Achilles. Young identifies this poet as a “near-Statius” who
was influenced by recent religious ideas from the Near East.22 Gnostic groups
sometimes spoke of baptism in the Acheron as a death leading to immortality,
and Young thinks they also spoke of baptism in the Styx.23 If that is true, it does
17. Achil. 1.133–34, 1.268–70, 1.480–81.
18. Lactant. ad Achil. 1.134, 296, 480; Fulg., Myth. 3.7; schol. Hor., Epod. 13.12; Serv. ad
Aen. 6.57; Vatican mythographers 1.36, 178, 2.205, 3.11.24 (Bode).
19. Examples are collected at LIMC “Achilleus” nos. 5–18; cf. Kemp-Lindemann 3ff. Depictions
of Achilles’ first bath (collected at LIMC “Achilleus” nos. 1–4) portray an entirely different scene
(see Kemp-Lindemann 2), though Kossatz-Deissmann occasionally suggests that there was conflation
between depictions of the first bath and the Styx-dipping. Kossatz-Deissmann believes that a golden
ring dated to the Hellenistic period (Los Angeles, County Museum of Art 61.48.2; LIMC “Achilleus”
no. 12) depicts the dipping of Achilles in the Styx, but Nancy Thomas, Curator of Ancient Art at
the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, informs me that this has now been judged inauthentic. A
cameo (Hannover, Kestermuseum K 640; LIMC “Achilleus” no. 18b) dated to the first century ...
is viewed by Woodford 26 as possibly the first depiction of the dipping of Achilles in the Styx,
but Kossatz-Deissmann points out that its authenticity has been doubted. A fragmented relief at
Champlieu (LIMC “Achilleus” no. 5) that seems to show Thetis dipping Achilles in the Styx as
Apollo watches (though Espérandieu 97–98 thinks it could be Demeter dipping Demophon in fire;
Benoit 108 suggests it is not a mythical scene) is dated to the first century .. in LIMC, but to the late
second century .. by Espérandieu 94.
20. Robert 67, 1187 thought the myth began at that time; Weitzmann 54ff. argues that Statius
used a Hellenistic literary source.
21. See, e.g., M. Edwards 1987:70; Gantz 627–28. Both, apparently accepting Young’s thesis,
have argued for alternative explanations (discussed below) of early Greek evidence that is suggestive
of the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability. Although Young’s article is not readily
available, I have heard more than one scholar mention the impression created by oral presentation
of it.
22. Young 15; he quotes Tertullian’s words at 25 n. 49 and 31.
23. Young 16, 25 n. 47 on the basis of some obscure remarks by Tertullian (De anim. 50.3–5;
quoted at Young 31) thinks that Menander Magus claimed to baptize in the Styx. Waszink says
ad loc. that “it is quite possible that Menander ‘the magician’ . . . baptized his followers in water
that he pretended to be (or to have come from) the Styx.” But it is not certain that Menander spoke of
the Styx, and I suspect that it is Tertullian who has linked Menander with the Styx for the purpose
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
223
not necessarily follow that they invented the concept out of whole cloth. It is
more likely that they borrowed a well-known motif of dipping in the Styx from
pagan myth to illustrate their ideas about baptism.24 That the concept of dipping
someone in the Styx for a beneficial result had long existed is suggested by a
Roman bronze cylindrical cista from the fourth century ... (Fig. 2). It has been
interpreted as depicting Athena applying ambrosia to the mouth of Ares after he
was dipped into the river Styx, represented as an urn with Cerberus above it. 25
The cista tells us nothing about when the story of Achilles’ dipping in the Styx
originated, but it does indicate that we should not look to the Near East of the
first century .. for the origin of the concept.26
Young also posits an incredibly short time frame for the adoption of the concept from the Near East into Roman myth. His interesting thesis may be doubted,
and it does not prevent us from provisionally concluding that the tradition of dipping Achilles in the Styx was known at least by the time of the Roman Empire and
perhaps as early as the Hellenistic period. It should be stressed that we still need
to consider traditions about how Achilles was slain before reaching final conclusions. Some early Greek evidence indicates that Achilles received a wound to his
lower leg, and this would seem to presuppose the story of his dipping in the Styx.
Let us first take a closer look at the tradition of the Styx-dipping. How could
the concept of dipping someone in the Styx, a river of death, ever be thought to lead
to invulnerability? We have already seen that in stories about making a newborn
child immortal a destructive element such as fire or boiling water is used to remove
the mortal part of the body. In the tradition of dipping Achilles in the Styx, an
of ridicule (as Waszink also states, “It is impossible to define exactly the nature of the custom to
which Tertullian alludes here”).
24. See Pépin 1991a, 1991b; Tardieu on such use of pagan myth by gnostics and early Christians.
Toynbee 407 believes that certain myths, including the dipping of Achilles in the Styx, were favorite
subjects in Roman provincial sculpture because they were viewed as “allegories of death and salvation
beyond the grave.” Sometimes it is thought that Roman depictions of the dipping of Achilles in the
Styx reflect Christian baptism (see Kemp-Lindemann 4; Young 23 n. 39; Gantz 627–28), but that
would not mean that baptism inspired the dipping of Achilles in the Styx. See also Hommel 39–40,
who suggests that the dipping of Achilles in the Styx, though late, originates from a latent association
of him with Hades (her thesis is that he originally was a god of the underworld).
25. Berlin, Staatliche Museen Misc. 6239; LIMC “Ares/Mars” no. 11. The Olympian gods are
also shown, watching the scene. Marx 169–79 first made this interpretation (of which Dieterich
198; Richardson 238 take note). Many aspects of Marx’s argument can be doubted, but I find the
completely different interpretation by Simon under LIMC “Ares/Mars” no. 11 very unconvincing.
Cerberus remarkably interrupts the continuous design around the rim exactly above the urn; note
also that the Styx is often represented as a urn (overflowing, with a nymph representing the Styx)
in later depictions of the dipping of Achilles.
26. Another possible influence on the tradition of dipping Achilles in the Styx (or similar stories)
is lustration in mystery religions. This is downplayed by Young 13–14, but see Richardson 232–33,
236, 241, 247; Farnell 41ff. Cf. Ov., Met. 14.599–604, where Aeneas has his mortal parts washed
away by the running water of a river. Onians 289–90 discusses the use of water for supernatural
purposes, including baptism, elixirs of life, purificatory washing, and immersion in boiling water.
The suggestion of Benoit (108) that the relief in Champlieu depicts not a mythical scene but a mystery
initiation rite is interesting in connection with this issue, though implausible.
224
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
infant is similarly dipped into a destructive element, namely the Styx.27 Thus
the dipping of Achilles in the Styx perpetuates an aspect present in the earlier
tradition about Thetis placing the infant Achilles in fire or boiling water. This
similarity between the two traditions has sometimes tempted scholars to suppose
that they are essentially the same. Yet let us be sure to recognize how the dipping of
Achilles in the Styx is different. The underworld as the location makes this attempt
to change Achilles’ nature more successful in its consequence. Now Peleus is not
present to interrupt the process, and so Thetis’ purpose can be realized. It should
also be noted that the Styx does not remove Achilles’ mortal nature, but rather
hardens his skin, making it invulnerable. This is clearly the result in Statius,
Servius, Fulgentius, and the Vatican mythographers. The scholiast on Horace
describes the sole vulnerable location as mortalis, as does Hyginus, Fab. 107 in
his description of the death of Achilles, but this does not mean that they conceive
of the rest of Achilles as immortal.28 It simply means that intrinsic to the concept of
imperfect invulnerability is the idea that the wounding of a single vulnerable spot,
no matter where its location, is fatal. Of course, a wound in the lower leg should
not be fatal, but similar tales in world folklore demonstrate that the wounding
of any uniquely vulnerable spot is enough to cause death.29 These aspects in
the tradition of dipping Achilles in the Styx—invulnerability as the purpose,
successful completion of the process, and a vulnerable area remaining that is fatal
if wounded—allow the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability to function.
THE DEATH OF ACHILLES
The question of when the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability first
developed cannot be decided until we examine evidence relating to the manner
27. This is not appreciated by Young 14–15, but is stressed by Marx 174; Dieterich 198; Waser
1577; Richardson 238ff. For ancient references to the destructive properties of the Styx, see Waser
1574ff. It may have long been considered fiery, as I think the name of the nearby river Periphlegethon
at Od. 10.513 suggests (see Stanford ad 10.511ff.), but the Styx and the Arcadian spring associated
with it were also characterized as extremely cold, poisonous, or corrosive. In any event its nature
was always seen to be destructive, and thus is comparable to a fire or boiling water. M. West ad
Theog. 805; Nagy 1979:188–89 suggest that the water of the Styx was called Šfqitoj because it
was considered an “elixir” of life, but I would think this adjective refers to the river’s immortal
nature, not to its effect.
28. Young 14 interprets these two sources to mean that Achilles has been made almost completely
immortal. Tertullian, De anima 50.3–5 does associate the dipping of Achilles in the Styx with
immortality, for that serves his argument (or he confuses the two concepts).
29. See Berthold 64; Thompson Z 311ff. The nearly invulnerable Soslan of Ossetian myth was
fatally wounded in the knee. Sometimes a uniquely vulnerable location is arguably mortal, e.g.,
the armpit of Ajax or the area between the shoulder blades on Siegfried. The author of an anonymous
medieval Excidium Troiae apparently thought that more than the wounding of Achilles’ vulnerable
location was necessary, for he portrays Paris shooting Achilles there with a poison arrow (see King
203).
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
225
of Achilles’ death. Explicit testimony that Achilles died through a wound to a
uniquely vulnerable location is late. The sources for the story of his dipping in
the Styx often state that Achilles died when he was struck by an arrow in the
one place not affected by the Styx, and Hyginus, Fab. 107 specifies that Achilles
died through such a wound. At first glance earlier accounts of the wounding of
Achilles also seem to narrate such a death. Proclus’ summary of the Aethiopis
does not indicate where Achilles was wounded, but Apollodorus, who apparently
used this poem as a source, states that Achilles was struck in the ankle (sfurìn,
Epit. 5.4). In addition, Quintus of Smyrna, who seems to have somehow used the
Aethiopis as a source (if indirectly and not solely; see Vian), also says Achilles was
struck on the ankle (sfurìn, 3.62). It is probable, therefore, that in the Aethiopis
Achilles was wounded on the ankle. Stesichorus may also have told of a wound
to Achilles’ ankle, for the letters “sfur” are present at fr. 43.ii.8, one of a series of
recently discovered fragments that Garner has interpreted as narrating the death
and funeral of Achilles.30
It seems that a story in which Achilles was wounded on the ankle was current
in the Archaic Age and perhaps originated in pre-Homeric tradition.31 Does this
mean that the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability was known in the
Archaic Age, or even to Homer? That question hinges on whether an ankle wound
is compatible with this concept. We need at this point to examine the location
of Achilles’ vulnerable spot. Many of the Roman literary sources for the Styxdipping do not state where Achilles remains vulnerable. Fulgentius and Hyginus
specify the ankle (talus) as the vulnerable spot. The Vatican mythographers also
specify the ankle (2.205; 3.11.24), though once the sole of the foot (planta) is
said to be the vulnerable spot (1.178). As Gantz has pointed out (628), words
for “heel” in the Romance languages derive from the Latin word for ankle, talus,
and this must have caused our common (mis)conception that it is Achilles’ heel
that is vulnerable. Roman art depicts Thetis holding Achilles by the ankle, or
above the ankle (see Fig. 1). These representations are too clumsy to be reliable
evidence but are compatible with the literary sources that specify the ankle or
30. Garner’s interpretation of fr. 43 is on p. 159. Garner’s article includes the fragments that are
most relevant to his argument; all of them can be found in the appendix, “Ineditorum Stesichoreorum,”
307ff. of Poetarum melicorum Graecorum fragmenta, ed. M. Davies, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1991).
31. The dates of the cyclic poems are controversial, as is indicated by the very disparate views
of the epic cycle’s two most recent editors, Bernabé and Davies. Davies dates them to the sixth
century, championing a linguistic analysis of fragments that originated with German scholars in
the late nineteenth century (see especially 1989b); Bernabé in his edition follows ancient testimony
in favoring dates from the eighth century onward (ancient testimony placed Arctinus, the reputed
author of the Aethiopis, in the eighth century; see Bernabé p. 65). I am skeptical about both views
but believe that the contents of these poems may well be pre-Homeric whatever their date. It is
generally agreed that artistic representations of cyclic material are earlier and more numerous than
representations of the Iliad, as is quickly demonstrated by a perusal of the graphs by Fittschen and
Cook (cf. Ahlberg-Cornell, who argues that representations of the Iliad begin in the eighth century,
very unpersuasively in my view). I conclude from this evidence that the cyclic poems preserve a
tradition that preceded Homer and resisted his influence.
226
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
foot as the vulnerable location. In the tradition of the dipping of Achilles in the
Styx, either the ankle is covered by the hand of Thetis, or she does not place her
hand in the river at all and thus the ankle and all of the foot remain vulnerable.
The literary sources that speak of the vulnerable spot as the spot where Achilles
was held (Servius, Lactantius, the Vatican mythographers) seem to suggest total
immersion. The sources that simply speak of the spot as one where Achilles was
not dipped (scholiast on Horace, Fulgentius) might mean that the vulnerable spot
remained above the river. Statius does not offer any details about the dipping of
Achilles in the Styx, and Hyginus does not even refer to it. What is frustrating
is that despite the importance of this detail commentators on both literary and
artistic evidence routinely speak of the wounding of the “heel” of Achilles, or of
Thetis holding him by the “heel,” though the heel is in fact hardly ever involved.
It is clear that the apparent wounding of Achilles on the ankle in the Archaic
Age is compatible with the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability. We
should not conclude yet, however, that this motif then existed. I have noted that
in Apollodorus Thetis fails to change the nature of Achilles when he was an
infant. So when Apollodorus later specifies that Achilles was struck in the ankle,
he cannot consider this a uniquely vulnerable spot. An ankle wound need not
necessarily involve a uniquely vulnerable location, as the evidence of art seems
to confirm.
A “Chalcidian” amphora by the Inscription Painter from the mid sixth century ... most strongly gives this impression (Fig. 3).32 The artist has portrayed
the scene immediately after Achilles’ death with great skill and artistry. The
figures are identified, so there can be no doubt what the scene represents. The fact
that the slain Achilles is wounded near the heel has often been thought to suggest
Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability. Yet the location of the wound is actually in the
back of the lower leg just above the ankle. This may be in accordance with the tradition of the dipping in the Styx, but that is not certain. Another detail is of greater
significance, a second arrow sticking out of the hero’s flank with blood streaming
out of the wound.33 If the artist thought that Achilles was invulnerable except for
one spot, why did he depict Achilles wounded in two locations? The “Chalcidian”
amphora does not represent the mortal wound to a single vulnerable area, and
it cannot therefore represent the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability. 34
Commentators who claim that it does usually ignore the second arrow or at least
fail to explain its significance. Pfuhl explained the problem this way (19): “in
32. Lost, formerly in the Pembroke-Hope collection; LIMC “Achilleus” no. 850. See KempLindemann 220.
33. The wound is said to be in the flank by Hampe/Simon 48, Young 13, Kossatz-Deissmann
under LIMC “Achilleus” no. 850, Woodford 94; in the back by Kemp-Lindemann 221, T. Carpenter
in his caption to illustration no. 328, Gantz 326; in the shoulder by Schoeck 77, 129, followed by
Janko 409; and in the chest by Pfuhl 19. The disagreement arises from the bold manner in which
the artist has made different sections of the body face the viewer at different angles; see Rumpf 59.
34. As Berthold 35–36; Young 13 rightly insist.
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
227
naive contradiction to it [Achilles’ invulnerability] a second arrow is sticking in
the dead man’s chest.” But this is an artist of much skill and sophistication, and
it is clear that he has taken great pains to depict the death of Achilles with as much
precision as possible.
Other representations in art are also relevant to this issue. The earliest possible
scene of Achilles being struck is on a proto-Corinthian lekythos from the early
seventh century ...35 Among the many warriors depicted is a kneeling archer
on the left who has shot an arrow that is about to strike the front of a standing
warrior’s shin. The scene in general is unremarkable, but the arrow is of colossal
size, as if the artist considered it to be especially significant. Usually this is
thought to be a heroic scene; commentators are divided, however, on whether it is
of Paris and Achilles or Paris and Diomedes (i.e., of Paris wounding Diomedes
at Iliad 11.369ff.).36 Diomedes was struck by Paris on the foot, and that wound
is certainly not represented here. If this is Paris shooting Achilles, then it is
questionable whether the location of the wound agrees with the tradition of his
dipping in the Styx. 37
An Etruscan black-figure amphora from the late sixth century ... seems
to depict Paris about to shoot Achilles from behind as Achilles chases another
warrior (Fig. 4).38 Perhaps Paris is aiming at the lower part of Achilles’ front leg,
which would be in accordance with the tradition of his dipping in the Styx. Yet
if Paris is pointing the arrow at the back leg, as most commentators suppose, then
the wound will be too high to be in accord with the Styx-dipping.39
An Attic red-figure pelike by the Niobid Painter from the fifth century ...
shows an arrow falling downwards towards the lower leg of a warrior standing
on the right, thought to be Achilles (Fig. 5).40 It has been shot by an archer on
the left, thought to be Paris, and is apparently guided by a figure standing in the
middle, who would of course be Apollo. This representation might illustrate the
wounding of Achilles in a uniquely vulnerable location. But note that Paris has
strung a second arrow and is about to shoot it. That might suggest that there
35. Athens, National Museum (no #); LIMC “Achilleus” no. 848. See Kemp-Lindemann 219.
36. Kossatz-Deissmann provides a summary of the controversy under LIMC “Achilleus”
no. 848. See also now Ahlberg-Cornell 72, who notes that the scene does not suggest the usual story
in which Achilles has driven the Trojans to the gates of the city (e.g., in the Aethiopis, according
to Proclus).
37. The cramped spacing may not have allowed the artist to make an accurate representation of
the wound’s location, as Hampe/Krauskopf under LIMC “Alexandros” no. 93 (= LIMC “Achilleus”
no. 848) point out.
38. Copenhagen, National Museum 14066; LIMC “Alexandros” no. 97. See Kemp-Lindemann
220–21.
39. Hampe/Simon 49 suggest Paris is aiming at Achilles’ right front foot; Hampe/Krauskopf
254 his heel. For other interpretations cf. Hampe/Krauskopf under LIMC “Alexandros” no. 97
(apparently Krauskopf, who is credited for the Etruscan art work in this article); Kemp-Lindemann
220–21; Gantz 626.
40. Bochum, Ruhr-Universität Antikenmuseum S 1060; LIMC “Achilleus” no. 851. See
Kunisch.
228
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
will be a second arrow wound, just as there is a second arrow wound on the
“Chalcidian” vase.41 This vase therefore may not narrate the wounding of a single
vulnerable location, though it does give further evidence that a lower wound
played an important role in the story of Achilles’ death.
A number of Etruscan and Italic gems from the Hellenistic period show a
lone warrior, thought to be Achilles, kneeling on the ground. 42 Often no wound is
shown, but sometimes there is an arrow stuck in his heel, in the back or front
of his ankle, or in his foot (e.g., Fig. 6). There are also Hellenistic gems that
depict the common schema of Ajax carrying the corpse of Achilles;43 sometimes
these represent an arrow stuck in Achilles’ heel, ankle, or foot (e.g., Fig. 7).
Robert could not decide (1188 n. 1) whether such gems portrayed the wounding
of Achilles’ uniquely vulnerable spot (a concept he believed originated in the
Hellenistic period) or an earlier story in which invulnerability was not present,
and perhaps the gems do not provide us with enough information to reach a
firm conclusion. But often when Achilles is depicted in a kneeling position,
he reaches rather casually to pull the arrow out. I wonder if this indicates
that it is an aggravating wound he has received, not a fatal one. One would
think that death through a uniquely vulnerable location would be swift and
overwhelming. The lack of intensity in the schema suggests to me that Achilles
is not dying but rather dangerously distracted and therefore vulnerable to a second
and lethal wound. 44
When we turn to art of the Roman Empire, we can be sure that the concept
of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability was known. Yet since an artist might be
following earlier traditions in which invulnerability was absent, close observation
of the evidence is required. A silver jug from the early Empire shows a warrior,
undoubtedly Achilles, kneeling in the same schema shown on the Hellenistic
gems.45 An arrow is stuck in his heel, warriors battle around him, and the
walls of Troy are in the background. As he often does in the Hellenistic gems,
Achilles is reaching for the arrow, which again suggests to me that the wound
41. Kunisch 19 differently concludes that one arrow is represented at two moments.
42. Examples are collected under LIMC “Achilleus” no. 853; cf. “Achle” nos. 128–33. I think
the Italic gem on the Basle market listed as LIMC “Diomedes” no. 114 depicts Achilles wounded
in the foot, not Diomedes. See also Kemp-Lindemann 221, though neither Kossatz-Deissmann nor
Kemp-Lindemann are especially interested in these wounds or accurate in their description (the same
applies to the gems mentioned in the next note).
43. Examples are collected under LIMC “Achilleus” no. 891; cf. “Achle” nos. 139–46. See
Kemp-Lindemann 225–26.
44. The Hellenistic gems collected under LIMC “Achilleus” no. 893 that represent two warriors
(probably Ajax and Odysseus) hovering about a kneeling warrior (undoubtedly Achilles) and often
looking worriedly off toward the enemy (e.g., Hannover Kestner K 1316; no. 893b) may depict the
moment Achilles has been immobilized and is in danger of receiving a second, lethal wound. A relief
scene on the “Tensa Capitolina” (Rome, Museo dei Conservatori 966; LIMC “Achilleus” no. 896)
is comparable, though Achilles is in a greater state of collapse.
45. Paris, Cabinet des Médailles (no #); LIMC “Achilleus” no. 856. See Kemp-Lindemann 221.
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
229
is not mortal.46 A bronze pan from the early Empire (Fig. 8) shows a warrior
carrying a corpse, which is reminiscent of the commonly depicted scene of Ajax
carrying the dead Achilles.47 The corpse is wounded in the thigh and in the
breast. These wounds make Kemp-Lindemann doubt that Achilles is depicted,
but the evidence I have examined demonstrates that there may have been more
than one wound in myth about the death of Achilles, with a lower wound placed
variously.
A fragmented wall painting from the first century .. shows two figures who
have been thought to be Apollo and Paris, both equipped with bow and arrow.48
Because the figures are static and because there is some indication of a structure in
the scene, I think it may depict the late version of Achilles’ death in which he
is ambushed in the temple of Thymbraean Apollo.49 Two reliefs from the third
century .. more certainly depict this story. Bronze paneling on a chariot (called
the “Tensa Capitolina”) displays a number of scenes from the life of Achilles,
including one thought to depict Paris aiming an arrow at Achilles as Apollo points
to his lower leg. The unarmored Achilles stands before an altar, unaware of
danger behind him.50 Relief scenes on a sarcophagus narrate Achilles’ marriage
to Polyxena and subsequent death.51 Achilles is shown in one scene without armor,
struck in the foot by an arrow. He appears to be swooning, holding one hand to
his head as a companion supports him. A figure who must be Paris significantly
points toward the wound.
46. Kossatz-Deissmann argues that the sinking of Achilles’ head signifies his death, but this
could be caused by synopsis (Hampe/Simon 49 point out that Achilles’ posture on the Etruscan
black-figure vase foreshadows his death, even though he is not wounded yet). Kemp-Lindemann
reports (221) that the jug depicts a second arrow in Achilles’ back, which would raise the same
questions as the “Chalcidian” amphora, but the arrow does not seem to have actually struck Achilles,
so far as I can tell from the photograph at Lehmann-Hartleben Pl. XIV B. The arrow is probably
just one of numerous arrows flying in the background of this chaotic battleground scene.
47. St. Petersburg, Hermitage (B 407); LIMC “Achilleus” no. 895. See Kemp-Lindemann 226.
48. Castellamare, Museum (no #); LIMC “Achilleus” no. 855.
49. Achilles goes there to marry Polyxena or to arrange a marriage with her. For sources of
this tradition, in which often Achilles is slain by Paris alone or by Paris and Deiphobus, see Frazer,
vol. 2, 214 n. 1; Gantz 628, 658–59; King 184–95. It seems the sacrifice of Polyxena over the
grave of Achilles, which is definitely early, eventually engendered a story about Achilles’ romantic
interest in Polyxena and subsequent death by ambush. I would agree with the common view that this
happened in the Hellenistic period (e.g., Förster 1882:199ff.; Robert 1189; Türk 2719; Scheliha 243;
P. Kakridis 294; Gantz 659; see King 290 n. 29 for further bibliography). Lycophron 307ff. rather
obscurely (as usual) links Polyxena’s death with marriage rites, which suggests the story of Achilles’
death in the temple was then known. King argues that Lycophron is only employing the common
ancient comparison of death to marriage, but Lycophron 271–72 refers to the ransom of Achilles’
corpse, which results most naturally from his death by ambush in the temple. Explicit narration of
this story first occurs in such authors as Dares (34), Dictys (4.10ff.), and Hyginus (Fab. 110). Förster
1883; Rzach 2394; Robertson (King 290 n. 25 provides further bibliography) argue that Achilles’
erotic interest in Polyxena, if not his death in the temple, existed already in the Archaic Age.
50. Rome, Museo dei Conservatori 966; LIMC “Achilleus” no. 857. See Kemp-Lindemann
221–22.
51. Madrid, Museo del Prado 182 E; LIMC “Achilleus” no. 858. See Kemp-Lindemann 222.
230
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
What can we conclude from these numerous illustrations of the death of
Achilles? The concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability seems to be presupposed by the two Roman works just described (if so, the sarcophagus clearly
demonstrates that the heel does not have to be the location of the uniquely vulnerable wound). It would be difficult to explain why Paris would shoot an unsuspecting
and unarmored Achilles in the lower leg otherwise, and certainly the tradition of
the dipping of Achilles in the Styx was known by the time of these artifacts (one of
the scenes on the “Tensa Capitolina” depicts the dipping of Achilles in the Styx;
see LIMC “Achilleus” no. 13). Earlier artifacts also seem at first glance to portray
this story, but close examination raises doubts. Certainly a wound to Achilles’
lower leg is common.52 Yet there is more than one wound on the “Chalcidian”
vase and on the Roman bronze pan. Two wounds would seem to preclude the story
of a uniquely vulnerable location. The Attic red-figure vase may show Paris about
to shoot a second arrow, and that could suggest there will be a second wound.53 I
have also proposed that the schema which depicts Achilles kneeling on the ground
and sometimes reaching toward an arrow stuck in his ankle, foot, or heel (found on
various Hellenistic gems and on a silver Roman jug) may indicate an aggravating
wound, not a mortal one. The variance of the lower wound is also significant. The
wound is not always depicted on the ankle, the location preferred by early literary
accounts of the death of Achilles as well as in later sources about the dipping of
Achilles in the Styx. It is sometimes on the ankle, but also in the heel, foot, lower
leg, and thigh. The location of some of these wounds could be in harmony with
the story of Styx-dipping, since this need not result in a uniquely vulnerable ankle
(as the wound in the foot on the Roman sarcophagus seems to confirm). Yet higher
wounds to the shin (the proto-Corinthian lekythos) and thigh (the Roman bronze
pan, and possibly the Etruscan black-figure amphora) do not seem to conform
to the tradition of the dipping of Achilles in the Styx.
Literary and artistic evidence about the death of Achilles supports the provisional conclusion reached after examination of stories about Thetis with the infant
Achilles. The concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability was apparently not
known in early Greek myth. It is possibly depicted on gems of the Hellenistic
period, but even thereafter it was at least sometimes ignored. Nonetheless, in
both early literature and art a lower leg wound to Achilles is emphasized. This
wound must not have been just an incidental detail in the story of Achilles’ death.
52. On some depictions of Apollo significantly holding out an arrow towards Achilles the point
is directed downwards (e.g., British Museum E 468; Vatican H 502, H 545; LIMC “Achilleus”
nos. 565, 568, 570; see also Pinney 141), which may imply a lower wound.
53. A second red-figure vase (British Museum E 808; LIMC “Achilleus” no. 852) also shows
Paris shooting more than one arrow, but there is no suggestion of a lower wound. Achilles states
at Il. 21.278 that he will die from the “shafts” (belèessin) of Apollo, and Pindar, Pyth. 3.101 speaks
of the arrows (tìcoij) that kill Achilles, which Berthold 36–37; Pestalozzi 17; Hampe/Simon 49 cite
as evidence for more than one wound. It should be noted, however, that tìca may be translated
as “bow”; furthermore, Quintus of Smyrna 3.419 uses a plural to refer to the one arrow that had killed
Achilles, and at Il. 21.113 Achilles speaks vaguely of a single arrow (or spear) that will kill him.
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
231
Somehow it was essential to the sequence of events, so much so that authors and
artists focused on it more than the fatal wounding. If this wound is not in reference
to a uniquely vulnerable location, why is it stressed?
The obscurity of the evidence discourages a ready answer, and it seems best
to consider a number of the interesting explanations that have been proposed by
scholars. Some have been attracted to the theory that Achilles wore invulnerable
armor in the pre-Homeric tradition, an argument most thoroughly presented in
recent times by P. Kakridis.54 He suggests (292–93) that Achilles was killed after
Apollo stripped off his invulnerable armor, just as Patroclus is slain in the Iliad. I
do agree with the neo-analytical position that the death of Patroclus is a reflection
of the death of Achilles.55 I think Kakridis is wrong, however, to assume that
Apollo’s role in the death of Patroclus reproduces exactly his role in the death
of Achilles and that therefore Apollo traditionally stripped off the invulnerable
armor of Achilles.56 But my main objection to his argument is his dismissal of
Achilles’ “heel” wound in early Greek myth as an unimportant detail. The interest
shown in it by early Greek artists and poets would indicate otherwise.
Other scholars who think Achilles wore invulnerable armor have avoided
this mistake and in fact have linked Achilles’ invulnerable armor directly with
a lower leg wound. Supposing that invulnerable armor prevented a more usual
mortal blow, they conclude that Paris and Apollo killed Achilles with a shot to
an unprotected area on the lower leg.57 One problem with this proposal is that
it does not explain the second wound to Achilles that I think is suggested by
the evidence we have examined. But the theory’s most unlikely aspect is the
assumption that someone could die from a wound to the lower leg. 58 It is true
that, as Berthold pointed out (36 n. 1), death from a lower wound occurs often
in world folklore. But this usually seems to result from a magical motif, like a
54. It was a commonly held theory earlier in the century, e.g., by Paton; Berthold 37ff.; Drerup
231 n. 3. Recently the idea has been accepted by Griffin 1977:40, 1980:167; de Romilly 34; M.
Edwards 1987:3–4, 68, 137, 236, 295–96, 1991:140–41, 322; Janko 310–11, 334, 409; Baldick 81.
55. J. Kakridis 85–88; Pestalozzi 16, 45; Heubeck 1991:465, 1954:93–94, 1974:40ff.; Schadewaldt 169, 194–95; Kullmann 1960:321, 1981:9, 19, 1984:310, 1991:440; Schoeck passim, esp. 15–
16, 68ff. This proposal has met with much agreement, e.g., by Scheliha 264; 397–98; Whitman
201, 345 n. 52; Fenik 1964:34 n. 5; Nagy 1979:63, passim; Mueller 53; Schein 26, 155; de Romilly
33ff.; Janko 1992 ad 16.777–867; Garner 1993:153–54. Scheliha and Garner provide bibliography
of scholars who preceded neo-analysts in observation of the correspondence. For a skeptical view,
see Fenik 1968:235ff.
56. And there are differences in the manner of death. As P. Kakridis himself notes (293 n. 1),
Patroclus is not slain by bow.
57. Berthold 35–36; M. Edwards 1987:239, 1991:322. Janko 334 apparently follows this
concept, though at 409 he suggests the lower wound was on a uniquely vulnerable spot (I find
Baldick 81, who follows Janko, equally confusing).
58. As Gantz 627 effectively argues. In Bk. 11 of the Iliad Diomedes survives a wound to the
foot. Quintus of Smyrna 3.60ff. depicts Achilles slowly dying from a single arrow wound to his
ankle, apparently bleeding to death (there is no indication of imperfect invulnerability in Quintus),
but I doubt this melodramatic scene, in which Achilles performs a long death monologue, is based on
the Aethiopis or on early tradition.
232
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
uniquely vulnerable location (the mere wounding of which can cause death no
matter where it is located, as I have argued). We have already concluded that
imperfect invulnerability was not part of Achilles’ story at an early date. Two
other magical motifs, however, might explain how a lower wound could kill
Achilles, and so they deserve consideration.
The concentration of the life spirit in an unusual place often ends in the
death of a hero when the location is accidentally or treacherously harmed.59 Gantz
proposes (627) that at one time the life spirit of Achilles was concentrated in
Achilles’ lower leg (he thinks that vital organs would have to be actually displaced
to that location, which is perhaps too awkward a rationalization). This story had
fallen out of favor “already at an early point,” he suggests, yet death by ankle
wound survived in myth about Achilles, though unexplained and implausible.60
This all seems a bit fantastic, but the theory has its attractions. Let us suppose that
such a story was known by early Greek authors and artists. Concentration of the
life spirit in an unusual location might be thought to explain nicely the evidence
for more than one wound (though Gantz is convinced there was not more than
one wound).61 If the skin of Achilles was vulnerable, but only lethally so in one
lower location, Achilles could survive wounds that would normally kill a man
yet die from a lower leg wound to his vital location.62 Yet some of the artifacts
we have examined depict Paris shooting Achilles in the lower leg first. If this
lower wound killed Achilles, there would be no need for a second wound.
The use of poison is another explanation of how a lower wound could be
fatal.63 Poison is usually considered to have no place in the heroic world, but
Heracles uses the poison of the Hydra on his arrows (e.g., to kill Nessus), and
Odysseus is said to have acquired some at Odyssey 1.252ff. (cf. the suitors’
supposition that Telemachus might put poison in their drink at 2.325–30). Viewed
59. E.g., Pterelaus and Nisus die after their hair is cut (see Berthold 31ff.; Frazer ad Apollod.,
Bibl. 2.4.7, 3.15.8; Gantz 257–58, 376–77). Cf. Samson, whose strength if not mortality is linked with
his hair (King 203 notes the parallels between Samson and some stories about Achilles’ imperfect
invulnerability). The linkage of the life spirit with an external object, e.g., Meleager’s with a fire
brand, is a related concept.
60. Gantz suggests that Quint. Smyrn. 3.60ff. might be explained in this manner; cf. Hyg.,
Fab. 107, though I have argued above that Hyginus is thinking of a uniquely vulnerable location.
61. Gantz 626 argues that at Apollod., Epit. 5.3–4 “the actual slayer would surely be credited”
if the ankle wound by Paris and Apollo did not kill Achilles. But it is easy to assume from the
passage that Paris and Apollo are responsible for a second and presumably fatal shot. It may be
surprising that only one wound is mentioned, but we are dealing with an epitome of a handbook,
and I will argue below that this wound was essential to the narrative. At 874 n. 57 Gantz argues
that “Apollo should have no need for more than one arrow.” True, but a divinity need not employ the
full extent of his powers when interfering in mortal affairs. It would be an uninteresting story if
Apollo simply cut Achilles down.
62. One might argue that Achilles was made incompletely immortal in such a way in the early
tradition about dipping him in fire or boiling water, though I have doubted that above. Gantz prefers
to conceive of Achilles as invulnerable except where his vital location is.
63. Rose/Robertson 5 briefly suggest that a poison arrow lies at the origin of the myth of
Achilles’ heel.
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
233
as just another of the magical elements common in Greek myth, its use is really not
that objectionable.64 I do not think that Achilles dies through a poisoned wound
in Quintus of Smyrna, though Way’s translation of qeoÜ dè min Êäj âdˆmna at
3.148 as “[Achilles’] strength ebbed through the god-envenomed wound” seems
to interpret Êìj as “poison.” It more likely means “arrow” (as at, e.g., 3.88),
a second meaning of the word.65 The only explicit narration of Achilles dying
from poison is in an anonymous medieval Excidium Troiae, in which Paris shoots
Achilles in his uniquely vulnerable location with a poison arrow (see King 203).
Celtic mythology provides a very relevant point of comparison, for the boar
bristle that pierces the sole of Diarmid is sometimes said to be venomous.66 These
examples are perhaps too obscure and late to shed light on early Greek myth,
but the more familiar case of Eurydice, who died after stepping on a poisonous
snake, demonstrates that death from poison in a lower wound is plausible in
ancient myth.67
It is even conceivable that Achilles used poison arrows. The hero was
educated in the use of special plants for healing by Chiron (e.g., Il. 11.831–
32); it is not a great leap of faith to suppose that he would also know how to
manufacture poison.68 The wounding Telephus received from Achilles cannot
heal until Achilles treats it,69 which is reminiscent of the festering poisonous
snakebite wound of Philoctetes. Interestingly, Achilles scrapes off rust from his
spear into the wound of Telephus to heal it. “Rust” is yet another meaning of
the word Êìj (Apollodorus, Epit. 3.20 uses this word in his account of the story).
In fact the two meanings “poison” and “rust” are based on the same root and
are practically indistinguishable (again, see Frisk 730–31). This ambiguity of
meaning could have once been of great significance in myth about Telephus. A
64. See S. West 107–108 for ethical considerations on the use of poison. Admittedly Ilos refused
to give poison to Odysseus “since he stood in dread of the gods,” and Athena in the guise of Mentes
may be inventing the tale of Odysseus’ interest in poison anyway. But it really does not matter if the
episode is untraditional or if Homer considered the use of poison unheroic; the passage is significant
in showing the potential role of poison in myth. See Murray 148–49 for other indications of poison
use in Homer; Paton 3 (esp. nn. 2, 3) for poison as a magical device (he suggests without explanation
that Philoctetes and Achilles used poison arrows, possibilities I will explore below). Hainsworth 303
much differently contends that in Greek myth “magic is a female speciality, incompatible with the
masculine ideal of heroism.”
65. The two meanings stem from different roots; see Frisk 730–71.
66. See Bergin, Lloyd, and Schoepperle 157–58; Green 81.
67. For sources see Frazer ad Apollod., Bibl. 1.3.2; Gantz 722–24. Interestingly, Garner 159
thinks that in the recently found fr. 43 of Stesichorus the arrow that struck Achilles on the ankle
is compared to a snake hiding in the thicket. Perhaps this supports the theory that Achilles was killed
by a poison arrow.
68. Robbins points out that Chiron, as the instructor of Achilles in the use of plants for healing
and also as the ultimate source of his spear, is responsible for both the hero’s destructive and healing
skills. The use of poison, a destructive use of medicinal skill, can be seen as the merging of these two
aspects.
69. This story goes back to the Cypria, according to Proclus (the treatment is not specified
there); see Frazer ad Apollod., Epit. 3.20; Gantz 578–80 for other sources.
234
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
paradox is central to stories about the cure of his wound. Our sources suggest
this variously: e.g., that only the one who wounded Telephus could cure him (so
Telephus is told by the oracle at Delphi in Apollodorus) or that only the spear that
wounded him could cure him. A statement to the effect that only the Êìj (rust) of
Achilles’ spear could cure the Êìj (poison) of Achilles’ spear would make a fitting
paradox. Maybe such a riddle was once part of the traditional tale (an oracle?).
Whether or not that is so, it is at least intriguing that in early Greek myth Achilles
both gives a lower leg wound to an opponent and later receives one; perhaps
poison played a role in both incidents.70
Poison would satisfactorily explain how Achilles could die from a lower
wound, but this theory, like the proposal that Achilles’ life force was situated
in his lower leg, ignores the evidence that a second wound was required to kill
Achilles. If Achilles did die from one lower wound in early Greek myth, imperfect
invulnerability would be as likely an explanation as any other. Just as evidence
for the multiple wounding of Achilles causes me to doubt the early existence of
Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability, it causes me to doubt these other theories. I
think we need an explanation that is compatible with a lethal wound to Achilles
following a lower, non-lethal wound.
The best explanation may be that Paris, with Apollo’s help, shot Achilles in the
lower leg to immobilize the hero. The wound would not be fatal; another wound
would be needed to kill Achilles. Robert concluded (1187) from the “Chalcidian”
vase that Achilles was first wounded in the “Ferse” and then fatally wounded in
the breast. This must be the correct sequence, for we often see depictions of Paris
aiming his first shot downwards. Pestalozzi later briefly suggested (17) that the
first wound was designed to immobilize Achilles. Hampe/Simon developed this
idea (48) into a more thorough argument for the immobilization of Achilles (and
pointed out that Pestalozzi was wrong to suggest, citing the wounding of Diomedes
by Paris at Il. 11.377, that the lower wound to Achilles on the “Chalcidian”
amphora actually nailed him to the ground).
70. It should be noted in passing that there seems to have been a motif in Greek myth in which
heroes suffer lower leg wounds (I thank David Sider for pointing this out to me). Besides Telephus
and Achilles, there is Philoctetes, Talos, and of course Oedipus. In addition, Odysseus as a youth was
gored in the leg by a boar (Od. 19.447ff.). It may have also been a motif of Greek myth for the user of
poison to suffer from poison (as in the case of Heracles). I have discussed Odysseus and Achilles as
users of poison; Philoctetes was also sometimes said to use poison arows inherited from Heracles (he
kills Paris with them at Quintus of Smyrna 10.231ff.; Dictys 4.5). Philoctetes certainly suffered from
(snake) poison, and according to my analysis Achilles may have been killed by a poison arrow. In the
Telegony, Odysseus is killed by a weapon that was made from the trug¸n, identified as the sting-ray
(see Telegonia fr. 4 Bernabé; Frazer ad Apollod., Epit. 7.36; Gantz 710–11). This story is usually
assumed (e.g., Bernabé p. 195; Heubeck 1989:86) to be derived ludicrously from the prophecy of
Teiresias that death for Odysseus will come âc lìj (Od. 11.134–35, which could be translated
as either “away from the sea” or “from the sea”). I side with those scholars who take it more seriously
(cf. Scheliha 415–16; Burkert 1983:159; A. Edwards 1985:227 n. 28; Nagy 1990:214). This weapon
is very plausible if we understand it to be poisonous; the sting-ray has a venomous tail that at least
one ancient source (Ael., NA 1.56) thought inflicted incurable wounds.
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
235
We might suppose that the ankle was commonly cited as the location of this
wound because a wound there would be especially immobilizing. It would not
matter, however, where the wound was, as long as it incapacitated the hero. Even
wounds to the shin and leg would serve the same purpose in the story. Therefore
all the early evidence of the wounding that we have looked at is compatible
with this story, though some of it at least is not compatible with the concept
of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability. But why would the immobilization of
Achilles attract the attention it seems to have if it did not kill him? It is clear
from his epithets podˆrkhj and pìdaj ²kÔj in the Iliad that the speed of Achilles
was an essential, and traditional, aspect of his nature. This “swiftness of foot”
would be an enormous advantage to the hero and make it very difficult for an
opponent to shoot him. A wound to his leg, ankle, or foot would effectively
remove his advantage of swiftness and make a second, fatal shot easier.71 It is true
that Homer usually depicts only one wound to a victim; the victim then either dies
or survives.72 An immobilizing wound followed by a mortal wound is therefore
unusual when compared to Homeric practice. However, we need not limit the
possibilities of myth to the habits of Homer. If an immobilizing wound is unusual,
that is explainable as arising from the special circumstances of Achilles’ famed
swiftness. And it is easy to understand why authors and artists would focus on
a non-lethal wound rather than the wound that actually kills Achilles. The first
wound would be essential to the sequence of events and thus most memorable.73
In accounts of the death of Achilles sometimes Paris alone is the slayer,
sometimes Apollo acts alone, sometimes they join forces.74 Authors and artists
who mention or portray only one or the other do not necessarily follow divergent
71. Martin Mueller has suggested to me that a wound to the foot would be most appropriate
for a hero who is called “swift-footed,” and adds that the wounding of Diomedes in Il. 11 would
seem to confirm the foot as the location of Achilles’ wound. Nonetheless I think that any wound that
immobilized Achilles would appropriately counter the essential point of the epithets, his swiftness.
72. See Schein 76ff.; Redfield 36. Hainsworth 253 provides a table about the location of wounds
in Homer.
73. The death of Patroclus may loosely reflect such a story, for Patroclus stands stunned
by Apollo (and thus immobilized) before receiving a fatal blow (cf. the death of Alcathous at
Il. 13.434ff.). In Pindar’s fragmented Paean 6 Apollo in the form of Paris is said to have saved Troy
by “constraining him with bold blood,” qraseØ fìnwú/ pedˆsaij (line 86). The verb pedn was
of course most commonly used metaphorically, but originally it had the connotation of shackling the
feet: is Pindar alluding to the immobilization of Achilles? The idiosyncratic version of Achilles’
death told by Ptolemy Hephaestion in the first century .. (see n. 11 above) may also reflect this
story (thus Robert 1187 n. 3), for Achilles is immobilized first, and then killed.
74. See Frazer ad Apollod., Epit. 5.3; Gantz 625 for sources. Why should Apollo be so
persistently involved in the death of Achilles? Various motives have been offered by ancient and
modern scholars, notably Achilles’ slaying of Troilus at the altar of Apollo Thymbraeus (see Frazer ad
Apollod., Epit. 3.32; Gantz 597–603 for sources; for early vase depictions see also LIMC “Achilleus”
nos. 359ff.; Kemp-Lindemann 118–26; Robertson; T. Carpenter 17–21; Ahlberg-Cornell 55, 187;
Woodford 55–59). This incident would at least seem to have inspired the setting of Achilles’ ambush
in the temple of Apollo Thymbraeus. Scholars like Robertson who think that Achilles was attracted
to Polyxena at an early date (see n. 49 above) adduce the presence of Polyxena in early art work
about her brother’s death, but that is an uncertain argument.
236
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
traditions; they could be emphasizing the slayer of their choice for their own
narrative purposes.75 The version of (e.g.) Virgil, Aen. 6.56–58, in which Apollo
merely guides the arrows of Paris, is arguably most plausible. There is an ironic
aspect running through the various accounts of Achilles’ death in myth, a sense
that something unlikely and unexpected leads to the downfall of a seemingly
invincible warrior.76 This aspect is best preserved if Apollo interferes in the
smallest degree possible, i.e., simply by guiding the arrows. That would seem
to be what Homer implies, and in art we usually see Paris shooting, with Apollo
merely guiding the arrows (if he is shown at all).77 Such minimal interference
on the part of a divinity is also consistent with how gods behave in Homer.78
If Achilles did not suffer a fatal wound on his lower leg, that does not disprove
the theory that he wore invulnerable armor. Invulnerable armor may in fact be
compatible with an immobilization of Achilles. It would be advantageous to wear
it, but it could not prevent all fatal wounds.79 The example of Hector in the Iliad,
slain by a wound to the neck in spite of his divine armor, demonstrates that. Memnon also wore divine armor made by Hephaestus in the Aethiopis, Proclus tells us,
yet somehow he was slain by Achilles. If Achilles wore invulnerable armor, a
shot that could get by it would be possible but very difficult because of his great
speed. If a shot first immobilized Achilles, then he would be much easier to kill. It
is therefore possible that both invulnerable armor and an immobilizing wound
were part of the same story in early Greek myth about the death of Achilles.80 And
perhaps a poison arrow could have contributed to the immobilization of Achilles
75. See Vian 31–32; Gantz 625.
76. It is often supposed (e.g., by Fenik 1986:15–17; Kunisch 18) that a lowly status of both Paris
and the bow contributes to this ironic quality, but Paris may not have traditionally been a coward and
the bow is associated with such figures as Heracles, Philoctetes, and Odysseus.
77. E.g., Robert 1187 n. 1; Pestalozzi 17; Hampe/Simon 47–48; Gantz 625 conclude that this
would have been the normal version in tradition. Schoeck 77, 130, followed by Jouan 94 and Janko
409, argued that the large arrow near the ankle on the “Chalcidian” vase was shot by Apollo, the
smaller by Paris. Cf. the Roman wall painting discussed above which may show both about to shoot.
J. Kakridis 85–86; Schadewaldt 161 n. 1 thought Apollo would do more than guide arrows, citing his
active interference in the death of Patroclus. I have noted above how P. Kakridis follows this line
of thought.
78. See Mueller 128–29 on the limited contact in warfare between gods and mortals in the Iliad.
Schein 63 points out that with the possible exception of Ares at 5.842 no god actually takes a human
life in the Iliad. Divine guidance of weapons either to or away from their mark, on the other hand, is
common, e.g., 4.132; 5.187, 290, 586; 8.311.
79. Kullmann 1960:42. Hainsworth 268 points out that in Homer arrows usually cannot penetrate
armor yet still manage to find uncovered spots. Sometimes these wounds are fatal; see Hainsworth’s
chart of wounds at 253.
80. Some artifacts, e.g., the Hellenistic gems that depict a warrior kneeling <with a lower
wound, do not depict armor except for helmet and shield, and so could not be thought to emphasize
invulnerable armor. As Ahlberg-Cornell 36–37, 187 points out, it should not be surprising that the
corpse of Achilles is not armored on depictions of it being carried by Ajax (Kossatz-Deissmann under
LIMC “Achilleus” no. 860 and at p. 192; Kemp-Lindemann 223 wonder how Ajax and Odysseus will
subsequently quarrel over the missing armor). We may assume Ajax has removed the armor and
sent it back to camp (as at Apollod., Epit. 5.4). Boardman 60 adds that the nakedness of a corpse
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
237
if the poison merely numbed the hero’s lower leg. A parallel is provided by the
poisoned lower wound of Philoctetes, which immobilizes but does not kill him
(Telephus may provide another parallel, according to my interpretation above).
CONCLUSION
After our consideration of many interesting theories, then, a possible explanation of how Achilles died in early Greek myth has emerged. Paris with the
help of Apollo, who probably merely guided his arrows, killed Achilles by first
immobilizing him with a lower leg wound. The lower wound would have taken
away from Achilles his greatest advantage, his swiftness. Such a wound may have
been one of the only wounds possible if Achilles was wearing invulnerable armor;
poison may have contributed to the immobilization. A subsequent wound would
have been the lethal wound.
I have pointed out that the early tradition of Thetis’ placing the infant Achilles
in fire or boiling water contains elements later present in the tradition of his dipping
in the Styx. Similarly, the death of Achilles through immobilization has aspects
that later appear in his death through a wound to a uniquely vulnerable spot. Most
obviously, a lower wound is central to both. It is through such a wound that a
remarkable advantage of Achilles, at first his famous swiftness, later his apparent
invulnerability, suddenly fails him. And if Achilles wore invulnerable armor in
the early tradition, then the motif of invulnerability would also continue from
the earlier to later tradition, transferred from the armor to Achilles himself.81 So
the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability may not have existed in early
Greek myth, but the seeds of the story did. Motifs from the earlier tradition of
the death of Achilles were later transformed and reused to create it.
The impetus for the invention of the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability could have come from the late tradition in which Achilles is ambushed in
the temple of Thymbraean Apollo. I have argued above that both this tradition and
the tradition of Achilles’ dipping in the Styx originated in the Hellenistic period.82
The story of Achilles’ death in the temple of Apollo removes two advantages that
Achilles possessed (according to my analysis) in the early tradition of his death on
the battlefield: his speed (he is killed when stationary, sometimes even held by
is “simply a common signifier of battlefield dead,” not necessarily an indication that it has been
despoiled.
81. Some, e.g., Drerup 231 n. 3, have argued instead that an invulnerable Achilles led to the idea
of his invulnerable armor. Berthold 38 criticized that idea.
82. It should be added that neither story was necessarily popular at first. Young 14 and King 188
use an argumentum ex silentio to doubt the existence before the Roman Empire of, respectively,
Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability and Achilles’ erotic interest in Polyxena. Absence of explicit
testimony in the authors best known to us does not preclude widespread existence of a story,
however. A later date for the invention of both Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability and death in
Apollo’s temple would be compatible with my argument; it is the existence of Achilles’ imperfect
invulnerability before his death in Apollo’s temple that would disprove it.
238
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
Deiphobus) and his invulnerable armor (he comes to the temple unarmored). 83
Often there is no hint of a uniquely vulnerable spot in accounts of the ambush of
Achilles; unsurprisingly so, for late authors like Dictys and Dares tended to favor
realism over the magical. But in one strand of this tradition Achilles’ imperfect
invulnerability is featured. Indeed, it has not been noticed how often the concept
of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability is linked with the tradition of Achilles’
death in the temple of Apollo. Most literary sources for the dipping of Achilles in
the Styx also narrate the story of his ambush (Lactantius, Servius, Fulgentius,
and the Vatican Mythographers).84 The two Roman works that certainly represent
Achilles’ death in the temple of Apollo seem to presuppose Achilles’ imperfect
invulnerability. Admittedly Hyginus specifies that Achilles was killed by a wound
to his “mortal” ankle outside the walls of Troy (Fab. 107). But Hyginus also knows
the story of Achilles’ death in the temple of Apollo (Fab. 110; unfortunately the
narrative is concerned with explaining why Polyxena was sacrificed and does
not give specifics on how Achilles was killed). The contents of Fab. 107 may
be easily explained as resulting from conflation of a comparable detail in two
different versions of Achilles’ death; i.e., Hyginus or his redactors replaced the
incapacitating lower wound of the battlefield with the lethal lower wound of the
temple.85 Usually the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability was linked
with the story of his death in the temple of Apollo, so much so that it seems
intertwined with it.
We might suppose that the later tradition of Achilles’ death in the temple
of Apollo, in removing the elements of Achilles’ speed and armor, necessitated
changes in how he was wounded. One strand in this tradition simply ignored as no
longer relevant the lower wound that had been featured in the earlier tradition.
Those who wished to keep the famous lower wound of the earlier tradition would
have had to invent a new motive for its presence, for now there is no swiftly
running Achilles to immobilize and now Achilles is completely unprotected. The
addition of imperfect invulnerability to his story, a concept already known in
Greek myth, would be a perfect solution. The hero is wounded in the heel for new
reasons: he is vulnerable only there, and the spot is linked to his mortality. A
83. He does not wear armor in the two Roman reliefs that depict the story or at Dares 34; Dictys
4.11; Philostratus, Heroicus 51.1–7 (De Lannoy); schol. Eur. Hec. 41. Achilles is also stationary at
his death in the Attic red-figure vase, but I think Hampe/Krauskopf 524 are correct to argue that
this is an idiosyncrasy of the artist (see also Kunisch 18, who interprets Achilles’ stance as indicative
of his seeming invincibility).
84. Statius and the scholiast on Horace do not relate the circumstances of his death.
85. Förster 1882:201 n. 3 demonstrates that Fab. 110 is not simply a later interpolation. Perhaps
a similar phenomenon of conflation is at play in the narration by Quintus of Smyrna of an eventually
mortal wound to Achilles’ ankle outside the walls of Troy. The “Tensa Capitolina” also employs both
traditions of the death of Achilles, though at different times. As Kemp-Lindemann 221–22 points
out, the work not only depicts the scene of Achilles’ death in the temple but also that of Ajax with a
wounded Achilles outside the walls of Troy (cf. LIMC “Achilleus” nos. 857, 896). Two different
traditions of the death of Achilles are thus represented.
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
239
story of why he should be vulnerable only there would arise out of the earlier
tradition about placing Achilles in fire or boiling water, and now the concept
of dipping in the Styx (which may also have been long known) is applied to
Achilles. According to this proposal, then, the concept of Achilles’ imperfect
invulnerability grew out of the later tradition of Achilles’ death in the temple
of Apollo.86 Since traditional stories are flexible and since motifs can be freefloating, occasionally the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability would
also have been added to later accounts of Achilles’ death on the battlefield.
Before concluding this examination of the motif of Achilles’ heel, we should
turn back to the wounding of Diomedes on the foot in Book 11 of the Iliad that
many have suspected is a reflection of the story of Achilles’ heel. It is made
increasingly clear in the Iliad, most notably in the words of the dying Hector at
22. 359–60, that Paris and Apollo will kill Achilles by bow and arrow beneath the
walls of Troy, but there is no indication of how Achilles will be killed. Homer
does not portray Achilles as invulnerable in the Iliad; he is wounded on the arm
at 21.166–67, and Agenor remarks about him later in this book (lines 568–70),
kaÈ gˆr qhn toÔtwú trwtäj xr°j æcèð xalkÀú, / ân dà Òa yux , qnhtän dè é
fas¯ Šnqrwpoi / êmmenai (“the skin even for this one is vulnerable to sharp
bronze, and there is only one life in him, and men say he is mortal”). We might
suppose that Homer suppressed Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability yet hinted at
the story through the wounding of Diomedes. It is no hindrance to this theory that
it is the foot, not heel, on which Diomedes is wounded (the main objection of
Hainsworth ad loc.), for that location is compatible with the story of Achilles’
dipping in the Styx. But since this tradition does not seem to have existed in
early Greek myth, it may be concluded that the Iliad does not indirectly represent
it through the wounding of Diomedes. However, I suspect Homer did know a
story about the death of Achilles that contained similar aspects, including a lower
wound that immobilized him. The wounding of Diomedes in the foot by Paris
could be a reflection of this immobilization of Achilles by Paris. Of course, the
wound is entirely accidental, Apollo does not assist Paris, and Diomedes does not
die. So this scene certainly does not reflect the death of Achilles as closely as
the death of Patroclus does. Yet it is often thought that Diomedes is a type of
Achilles figure in the middle books leading up to this scene. 87 Perhaps a brief
reflection of Achilles’ death by the wounding of Diomedes exists on a secondary
86. As has been mentioned above, this tradition itself probably grows out of two incidents of
undoubtedly early date: the sacrifice of Polyxena on the tomb of Achilles and the slaying of Troilos at
the altar of Apollo.
87. Schoeck 75ff. well discusses their similarities. A flame appears round the head of Diomedes
at 5.4ff., an anticipatory doublet of the same occurring to Achilles at 18.205ff.; Trojans explicitly
compare the two at 6.96ff. and pray that Diomedes will fall at the Scaean gates at 6.305ff. (reminiscent
of Achilles’ fate). See also Nagy 1979:30–31. At 8.195 the breastplate of Diomedes is said to be made
by Hephaestus (cf. Achilles’ Hephaestan armor), but well-made artifacts are commonly ascribed to
this divinity. Schein 81 prefers to see the similarities of the two heroes as the result of aristeia
typology.
240
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
level to the enactment of Achilles’ death by the slaying of Patroclus, as Mueller
suggests (53). The vague and fleeting parallel between the wounding of Diomedes
and the death of Achilles would not so much foreshadow the death of Achilles,
as I think the death of Patroclus does, but rather emphasize the significance of
the wounding of Diomedes.88 The Achaeans have now lost the hero who during
Achilles’ absence was their best warrior, a sort of Achilles figure (Diomedes stays
out of action for the rest of the poem). This corresponds to the later permanent loss
experienced by the Achaeans when their very best warrior is slain after suffering a
lower leg wound.
In the end one may find it difficult to decide with confidence how Achilles
was killed at an early date, but this study should assist evaluation of the obscure
ancient evidence and the very different interpretations of it by modern scholars.
The common assumption that the concept of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability
existed at an early date in Greek myth is very questionable. The early tradition
in which Achilles is placed in fire or boiling water does not result in his imperfect
invulnerability (or immortality). Undoubtedly Achilles was wounded in the lower
leg in the early tradition of his death on the battlefield, but this does not necessarily
suggest he was imperfectly invulnerable. It is quite possible that Achilles was
simply immobilized by a lower leg wound before being slain by a second wound.
Perhaps invulnerable armor and even poison were involved in this tradition,
a tradition which Homer probably knew. A new tradition of Achilles’ death
involving his ambush in the temple of Apollo later arose, inspiring the concept
of Achilles’ imperfect invulnerability. This in turn was explained by a tradition
of Achilles’ being dipped in the Styx, itself arising from the earlier tradition of
his being placed in fire or boiling water. What is remarkable is that despite the
changes in myth about the infancy and death of Achilles, certain themes remained
resilient and adaptable to new contexts.
University of Toronto
REFERENCES
Ahlberg-Cornell, G. 1992. Myth and Epos in Early Greek Art. Jonsered.
Baldick, J. 1994. Homer and the Indo-Europeans. London.
Benoit, F. 1969. Art et dieux de la Gaule. Paris and Grenoble.
Bergin, O. J., J. H. Lloyd, and G. Schoepperle. 1912. “The Death of Diarmid.” Revue
Celtique 33: 157–79.
Bernabé, A., ed. 1987. Poetae epici Graeci: Testimonia et fragmenta. Vol. 1. Leipzig.
Berthold, O. 1911. Die Unverwundbarkeit in Sage und Aberglauben der Griechen.
Giessen.
88. See Schoeck 76–77; Kullmann 1960:314–15.
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
241
Boardman, J. 1990. “The Greek Art of Narrative.” In J.-P. Desœudres, ed., EUMOUSIA:
Ceramic and Iconographic Studies in Honour of Alexander Cambitoglou. Sydney.
Brown, S. 1991. Late Carthaginian Child Sacrifice. Sheffield.
Burkert, W. 1983. Homo Necans. Tr. P. Bing. Berkeley.
. 1985. Greek Religion. Tr. J. Raffan. Cambridge, Mass.
Calasso, R. 1993. The Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony. Tr. T. Parks. Toronto and
New York.
Carpenter, R. 1946. Folk Tale, Fiction, and Saga in the Homeric Epics. Berkeley.
Carpenter, T. H. 1991. Art and Myth in Ancient Greece. London.
Cook, R. M. 1983. “Art and Epic in Ancient Greece.” BABesch 58: 1–10.
Cross, T. P. 1952. Motif-Index of Early Irish Literature. Bloomington.
Davies, M., ed. 1988. Epicorum Graecorum fragmenta. Göttingen.
. 1989a. The Epic Cycle. Bristol.
. 1989b. “The Date of the Epic Cycle.” Glotta 67: 89–100.
de Romilly, J. 1983. Perspectives actuelles sur l’epopée Homérique. Paris.
Dieterich, A. 1893. Nekyia. Leipzig.
Drerup, E. 1921. Das Homerproblem in der Gegenwart. Würzburg.
Edwards, A. T. 1985. “Achilles in the Underworld: Iliad, Odyssey, and Aethiopis.” GRBS
26: 215–28.
Edwards, M. W. 1987. Homer: Poet of the Iliad. Baltimore.
. 1991. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 5. Cambridge.
Espérandieu, É. 1913. Recueil général des bas-reliefs, statues, et bustes de la Gaule
romaine. Vol. 5. Paris.
Farnell, L. R. 1916. “Ino-Leukothea.” JHS 36: 36–44.
Fenik, B. C. 1964. “Iliad X” and the “Rhesus”: The Myth. Brussels.
. 1968. Typical Battle Scenes in the Iliad. Hermes Einzelschriften, Heft 21.
Weisbaden.
. 1986. Homer and the Nibelungenlied. Cambridge, Mass.
Fittschen, K. 1969. Untersuchungen zum Beginn der Sagendarstellungen bei den
Griechen. Berlin.
Foley, H. P., ed. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Princeton.
Förster, R. 1882. “Achilleus und Polyxena.” Hermes 17: 193–238.
. 1883. “Zu Achilleus und Polyxena.” Hermes 18: 475–78.
Frazer, J. G., ed. 1921. Apollodorus: The Library. 2 Vols. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge, Mass.
Frisk, H. 1960. Griechisches etymologisches Wörterbuch. 2 Vols. Heidelberg.
Gantz, T. 1993. Early Greek Myth. Baltimore.
Garner, R. 1993. “Achilles in Locri.” ZPE 96: 153–65.
Green, M. J. 1992. Dictionary of Celtic Myth and Legend. London.
Griffin, J. 1977. “The Epic Cycle and the Uniqueness of Homer.” JHS 97: 39–53.
. 1980. Homer on Life and Death. Oxford.
Hainsworth, B. 1993. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 3. Cambridge.
Hampe, R., and I. Krauskopf. 1981. “Alexandros.” In LIMC.
Hampe, R., and E. Simon. 1964. Griechische Sagen in der frühen etruskischen Kunst.
Mainz.
Hedreen, G. 1991. “The Cult of Achilles in the Euxine.” Hesperia 60: 313–30.
Heubeck, A. 1954. Der Odyssee-Dichter und die Ilias. Erlangen.
. 1974. Die Homerische Frage. Darmstadt.
. 1989. “Books IX–XII.” In A. Heubeck, S. West, and J. B. Hainsworth, eds.,
A Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. 2. Oxford.
242
 
Volume 14 / No. 2 / October 1995
. 1991. “Studien zur Struktur der Ilias (Retardation-Motivübertragung).” In J.
Latacz, ed., Homer: Die Dichtung und ihre Deutung. Darmstadt.
Hommel, H. 1980. “Der Gott Achilleus.” SBHeid Abh. 1: 7–52.
Janko, R. 1992. The Iliad: A Commentary. Vol. 4. Cambridge.
Jouan, F. 1980. “Le cycle épique: État des questions.” In Association Guillaume Budé,
Actes du Xe congrès: 83–104. Paris.
Kakridis, J. T. 1949. Homeric Researches. Lund.
Kakridis, P. J. 1961. “Achilleus’ Rüstung.” Hermes 89: 288–97.
Kemp-Lindemann, D. 1975. Darstellungen des Achilleus in griechischer und römischer
Kunst. Frankfurt.
King, K. C. 1987. Achilles. Berkeley.
Knaack, G. 1903. “Demophon.” In RE.
Kossatz-Deissmann, A. 1981. “Achilleus.” In LIMC.
Kullmann, W. 1960. Die Quellen der Ilias. Hermes Einzelschriften, Heft 14. Wiesbaden.
. 1981. “Zur Methode der Neoanalyse in der Homerforschung.” WS 15: 5–42.
. 1984. “Oral Poetry Theory and Neoanalysis in Homeric Research.” GRBS 25:
307–24.
. 1991. “Ergebnisse der motivgeschichtlichen Forschung zu Homer (Neoanalyse).” In J. Latacz, ed., Zweihundert Jahre Homer-Forschung. Stuttgart.
Kunisch, N. 1989. “Symposion: auch Gespräche über Kunst.” In Symposion: Griechische
Vasen aus dem Antikenmuseum der Ruhr-Universität Bochum. Köln.
Lehmann-Hartleben, K. 1938. “Two Roman Silver Jugs.” AJA 42: 82–105.
Littleton, C. S., and L. A. Malcor. 1994. From Scythia to Camelot. New York and London.
MacCulloch, J. A. 1918. “Celtic Mythology.” In L. H. Gray and G. F. Moore, eds., The
Mythology of All Races, vol. 3. Repr. New York, 1964.
Macleod, C. W., ed. 1982. Homer, Iliad Book XXIV. Cambridge.
Marx, F. 1885. “Ein neuer Aresmythus.” AZ 43: 169–79.
McLeod, W. 1987. “The Iliad and the Odyssey as Great Literature.” In K. Myrsiades,
ed., Approaches to Teaching Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. New York.
Mueller, M. 1984. The Iliad. London and Boston.
Murnaghan, S. 1992. “Maternity and Mortality in Homeric Poetry.” ClAnt 11: 242–64.
Murray, G. 1934. The Rise of the Greek Epic. 4th ed. Oxford.
Nagy, G. 1979. The Best of the Achaeans. Baltimore.
. 1990. Greek Mythology and Poetics. Ithaca.
Onians, R. B. 1951. The Origins of European Thought. Cambridge.
Paton, W. R. 1912. “The Armour of Achilles.” CR 26: 1–4.
Pépin, J. 1991a. “The Survival of Myths in Early Christianity.” Tr. G. Honigsblum. In
Y. Bonnefoy and W. Doniger, eds., Mythologies, vol. 2: 649–54. Chicago.
. 1991b. “Christian Judgments on the Analogies between Christianity and Pagan
Mythology.” Tr. D. White. In Y. Bonnefoy and W. Doniger, eds., Mythologies, vol. 2:
655–65. Chicago.
Pestalozzi, H. 1945. Die Achilleis als Quelle der Ilias. Zürich.
Pfuhl, E. 1955. Masterpieces of Greek Drawing and Painting. Tr. J. D. Beazley. London.
Pinney, G. F. 1983. “Achilles Lord of Scythia.” In W. G. Moon, ed., Ancient Greek Art
and Iconography. Madison.
Redfield, J. M. 1975. Nature and Culture in the Iliad. Chicago.
Richardson, N. J., ed. 1974. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter. Oxford.
Robbins, E. I. 1993. “The Education of Achilles.” QUCC 45: 7–20.
Robert, C. 1920–1926. Die griechische Heldensage. 4th ed. Vol. 2 of Griechische
Mythologie. L. Preller, rewritten by C. Robert. Berlin.
: The Death of Achilles in Ancient Myth
243
Robertson, M. 1990. “Troilos and Polyxene: Notes on a Changing Legend.” In J.-P.
Desœudres, ed., EUMOUSIA: Ceramic and Iconographic Studies in Honour of
Alexander Cambitoglou. Sydney.
Rose, H. J., and C. M. Robertson. 1970. “Achilles.” In OCD, 2nd ed.
Rumpf, A. 1927. Chalkidische Vasen. Berlin.
Rzach, A. 1922. “Kyklos.” In RE.
Schadewaldt, W. 1965. Von Homers Welt und Werk. 4th ed. Stuttgart.
Schein, S. L. 1984. The Mortal Hero. Berkeley.
Scheliha, R. von. 1943. Patroklos. Basel.
Scherer, M. R. 1963. The Legends of Troy. London.
Schoeck, G. 1961. Ilias und Aithiopis. Zurich.
Severyns, A. 1928. Le cycle épique dans l’école d’Aristarque. Paris.
Shefton, B. B. 1973. “Agamemnon or Ajax?” RA 203–18.
Simon, E. 1984. “Mars auf pränestinischen Cisten.” In LIMC “Ares/Mars,” E. Simon
and G. Bauchhenss, p. 510.
Stanford, W. B., ed. 1959. The Odyssey of Homer. 2 vols. 2nd ed. London.
Stanley, K. 1993. The Shield of Homer. Princeton.
Tardieu, M. 1991. “The Gnostics and the Mythologies of Paganism.” Tr. D. White. In
Y. Bonnefoy and W. Doniger, eds., Mythologies, vol. 2: 667–79. Chicago.
Thompson, S. 1955–1958. Motif-Index of Folk Literature. 2nd ed. Bloomington.
Thordarson, F. 1972. “Die Ferse des Achilleus—ein skythisches Motiv?” SymbOslo 47:
109–24.
Toynbee, J. M. C. 1977. “Greek Myth in Roman Stone.” Latomus 36: 343–412.
Türk, G. 1897–1909. “Polyxena.” In W. H. R. Roscher, ed., Ausführliches Lexicon der
griechischen und römischen Mythologie, 1884–1937. Leipzig.
Vermeule, E. 1979. Aspects of Death in Early Greek Art and Poetry. Berkeley.
Vian, F. 1959. Recherches sur les Posthomerica de Quintus de Smyrne. Paris.
Waser, O. 1909–1915. “Styx.” In W. H. R. Roscher, ed., Ausführliches Lexicon der
griechischen und römischen Mythologie, 1884–1937. Leipzig.
Waszink, J. H., ed. 1947. Tertullian: De anima. Amsterdam.
Way, A. S., ed. 1913. Quintus Smyrnaeus: The Fall of Troy. Loeb Classical Library.
Cambridge, Mass.
Weitzmann, K. 1959. Ancient Book Illumination. Cambridge, Mass.
Welcker, F. G. 1882. Der epische Cyclus, oder die Homerischen Dichter. 2nd ed. Vol. 2.
Repr. Hildesheim and New York, 1981.
West, M. L., ed. 1966. Hesiod, Theogony. Oxford.
West, S. 1988. “Books I–IV.” In A. Heubeck, S. West and J. B. Hainsworth, eds., A
Commentary on Homer’s Odyssey, vol. 1. Oxford.
Whitman, C. 1958. Homer and the Heroic Tradition. Cambridge, Mass.
Woodford, S. 1993. The Trojan War in Ancient Art. Ithaca.
Young, D. C. 1979. “The Diachronic Study of Myth and Achilles’ Heel.” CCA-NS Journal
4.1: 3–34.
 1–2

Figure 1: Stone relief; Rome, Musei Capitolini 64. Photo courtesy of
Alinari/Art Resource, N.Y.
Figure 2: Roman cylindrical cista; Berlin, Antiken-Museum, Staatliche
Museen Misc. 6239. Photo by John Glover of line drawing (Marx 169).

 3
Figure 3: “Chalcidian” amphora by the Inscription Painter; lost: once in the Pembroke-Hope collection. Photo by Brian Boyle of
drawing (Rumpf, pl. 12).
 4

Figure 4: Etruscan amphora; Copenhagen, National Museum 14066.
Photo courtesy of the National Museum, Copenhagen, Department of
Near Eastern and Classical Antiquities.

Figure 5: Red-figure pelike by the Niobid Painter; Bochum, Ruhr
Universität Antikenmuseum S 1060. Photo by Irma Berndt, courtesy
of Ruhr Universität Antikenmuseum.
 5
 6–7

Figure 6: Etruscan-Italic gem; Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum
AS IX B 228. Photo courtesy of Kunsthistorisches Museum.
Figure 7: Italic gem; New York, Metropolitan
Museum of Art 81.6.21, gift of John Taylor
Johnston, 1881. Photo courtesy of the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Figure 8: Roman bronze pan; St. Petersburg, Hermitage B 407. Photo
courtesy of the Hermitage.
Figure 9: Siana cup in the manner of the Heidelberg painter;
Berlin 3402. Photo courtesy of the Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin 1996.
 8–9

(2/97)

H. A. G. Brijder has proposed ( The Heidelberg Painter [Amsterdam ]
–) that a fallen warrior on a Siana cup (c.  ; Fig. ) is Achilles
about to be slain by an arrow in the heel. He notes the arrow apparently about
to strike the upraised heel of the fallen warrior, the pointed oriental hat worn by an
archer to the right of the fallen warrior, and the general resemblance to Achilles’s
death-scene on the “Chalcidician” vase. Achilles has been merely wounded by
the arrows in his back and buttocks, according to his interpretation; the mid-air
arrow will finish him off once it hits his heel. This would seem to agree with
my argument that Achilles was first immobilized by a lower wound before being
slain by an upper wound. In fact I do not think that the death of Achilles is being
portrayed. It could easily be a coincidence that one of the many arrows flying
through the air in this chaotic battle scene appears near the heel of the warrior
on the ground, who should be considered dead, not wounded. As for the hat of the
archer, a pilos is commonly shown in military scenes of these Siana cups (Brijder
, ). Peter Heslin, who brought this vase to my attention with his paper
on Achilles’s heel delivered at Leeds in May of , has another interpretation
worthy of consideration (personal communication, July ); that the painter
through synopsis is portraying multiple stages of the death of Achilles at once.
Thus the painter may indeed be alluding to an initial immobilizing wound in the
heel.
On the possible fiery nature of the Styx ( n.), see also E. Cook,
“Ferrymen of Elysium and the Homeric Phaeacians,” JIES  ()  n.,
who suggests an Egyptian origin for the concept of a fiery underworld river.
The famous Gundestrup cauldron, commonly dated to the first century ,
might also be brought into consideration of the concept of dipping someone
in liquid for a beneficial result. Miranda Green  favors the view that one
scene on it depicts immersion in a cauldron of immortality, a motif in Irish and
Welsh literature that she would trace back to Bronze Age Europe (–). On the
disputed date and origins of this artifact, see the thorough if idiosyncratic study
by G. S. Olmstead (The Gundestrup Cauldron [Bruxelles ]), especially –
where the history of this idea and other alternatives (favored there) are surveyed.